POLL: Most Americans want tax reform, but which kind?

“Are you satisfied with your care?” If you’d say “no” regarding the current tax system, you’re not alone.

Baymax aside, a new America First Policies poll reports that 82% of the 1,200 registered voters surveyed “think tax reform needs to pass.” As a knee jerk reaction, one could take this as wonderful news! We all know the modern tax model is unfair and we want to see it restructured. The problem is how Americans want to see such reform implemented, and this survey alone doesn’t tell us as much as it might seem.

Here’s what we know, according to Axios:

61% of Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 75% of Republicans are unhappy with the current tax system

83% of those polled want a “simpler and fairer” tax system and one that provides relief for families with child and dependent care expenses

84% want the tax code to be modernized “to encourage corporations to stay in America”

76% want a system that will increase wages and “create nearly 2 million full-time jobs” in the U.S.

These are all worthy goals; we want a simpler and fairer tax code, we want booming business in America, and we want more jobs. But how? Words like “fair” mean very different things on opposite sides of the aisle — I might think “flat tax,” but the Left would say “tax the rich.”

Just as an example, here’s a simple, “fair” tax plan according to the Left: 90% marginal income tax for the top 1%, 50% marginal income tax for the top 1-30%, no income tax for the bottom 70%, 100% inheritance tax, 60% corporate tax, no exempt status for right-wing churches, no loopholes.

Fair, right?

Sadly, these aren’t exaggerations. According to Bernie Sanders, Cenk Uygar of The Young Turks, and Huffington Post, a 90% tax on the top bracket wouldn’t be too high. In fact, Cenk claims America’s former 91% tax contributed to the booming economy of the 1950s, although that’s been debunked by The Blaze as well as Ben Shapiro at Politicon in July.

Others argue in favor of collecting a 100% inheritance tax to fund Medicare-for-all. One writer concludes, “I’m hesitant to impose such a tax, even though on principle I think it’s a fine idea.”

Interestingly, despite most Americans’ dissatisfaction with the current tax system more generally, a smaller majority (53% according to Pew Research) feel they personally pay “about the right amount” of taxes, with around 40% saying their rate is too high, both among general voters and millennials.

So how can 82% of Americans want tax reform while 53% are okay with their own tax rate? As usual, this boils down to the top brackets. According to another Pew poll, 82% feel that “some corporations don’t pay their fair share,” and 79% believe “some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.”

So while the average American is okay with his own tax cut, he’s always looking at somebody else to foot the bill. And when 82% think the system needs reforming, remember the same ratio’s ideal reform includes gutting the prosperous. And if we take the word of famed economists Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell, as well as newly named “debate thug” Ben Shapiro, not only is piling taxes on the wealthy morally wrong, it also makes zero economic sense.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter here and here.

3 migrant caravan claims Jim Acosta made to President Trump that have been debunked… by the migrant caravans

CNN’s Jim Acosta has been at the center of the news cycle for 12 days. It’s not his reporting that landed him there. He’s the center of attention after the Secret Service suspended his hard pass to the White House. His pass is back and most seem to be moving on from the story. But something has been lost in the mix. The statements he made while badgering the President on November 7 were spoken with authority and certainty.

Less than two weeks later, all three of his claims have been proven wrong by the migrant caravans themselves.

“They’re hundred of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away.”

Around 3,000 migrants arrived in the last few days, doubling the total number of migrants waiting to be processed at the San Ysidro border crossing to 6000. Thousands more are expected in the coming days.

More than 500 criminals are traveling with the migrant caravan that’s massed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing, homeland security officials said Monday afternoon.

The revelation was made during a conference call with reporters, with officials asserting that “most of the caravan members are not women and children”. They claimed the group is mostly made up of single adult or teen males and that the women and children have been pushed to the front of the line in a bid to garner sympathetic media coverage.

By now, any thinking person regardless of political ideology should realize Jim Acosta is an idiot. In the short time he held the mic at the press conference, he made three debunked statements. Journalists are supposed to expose the truth, not spread lies.

Related

Fred Savage owns Deadpool in Once Upon a Deadpool trailer

I’ll admit, I didn’t even know this was a thing. When I heard about it, I assumed it was a spoof, probably put out by Ryan Reynolds to catch a few Christmas laughs. I was wrong.

Once Upon a Deadpool is a new edit of Deadpool 2 made with a PG-13 rating. Fox has been pushing for Reynolds to do a PG-13 version for over a decade, but the star has refused until now. He had two requirements. First, he Fox to donate money from the movie to a charity of Reynold’s choice. Which did he choose? A charity Fox is referring to as “Fudge Cancer,” though the charity’s real name would be better served in the R-rated version of Deadpool.

The second requirement is that Reynolds needed permission to kidnap Fred Savage.

Reynolds got both of his wishes and Once Upon a Deadpool was born. It’s due for a limited engagement next month.

Related

Legislators tell Allen West: Next version of First Step Act will cut loopholes

Last week, a handful of conservatives, including Lt. Col. Allen West and Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz, went after the bipartisan First Step Act, a criminal justice reform bill that has the backing of the President and many conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Our complaint: why would the GOP support a bill that releases violent criminals and illegal immigrants?

According to legislative proponents of the bill, protections and benefits for both of these groups of felons have been eliminated in the next version of the bill that will reach the Senate floor. They reached out to West over the weekend to let them know they heard the concerns and are addressing them.

The First Step Act is supported by many conservatives and law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National District Attorneys Association. There are other proposals offered by those on the far left under the same banner of “criminal justice reform” that would release people from prison without regard to the danger they pose, including illegal immigrants and serious violent offenders. We must remember that there are some folks who are, well, as the ol’ folks would say, “just bad.” Additionally, some left-wing professors even propose abolishing all prisons partly based on their notion that the system is racist in nature. Hmm, I tend to believe that skin color or race has nothing to do with a person deciding to break the law. I just do not want us to go down the path of having criminals believe that there are no consequences, ramifications, for their actions and behaviors.

The legislators echoed our concerns and said the version that is currently available doesn’t reflect the changes that cut the loopholes. They say it will be impossible for these two groups – serious violent offenders and criminal illegal immigrants – to get the benefits of the bill. Many felons will be released early. Future felons will be given lighter sentences. That makes sense for many, but by no means should anyone in either of the two most dangerous groups receive sentence reductions, according to the letter to West.

My Take

Call me cynical, but lately I’ve changed my general rules regarding promises of politicians. It used to echo President Reagan’s stance on nuclear disarmament: “Trust but verify.” I now have to go with a more adversarial stance on political promises: “Show me proof, then we’ll talk.”

When the legislation is made available to the public, many will take a close look at it. I’ll personally be checking to see if there are any loopholes that would put violent offenders or criminal illegal immigrants back on the street sooner. If so, it’s a no-go for me.